(19-10-2012 02:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Ed,
I think you may be "anthropomorphizing" things, a bit, for Pete the Parmecium.

LOL

Quote:I think you're a good, compassionate guy, and you feel guilty about pestering the little guy. No,it's just chemical reactions. I'll try to find some and explain why that would happen in the environment of the "basic" pH. I know you know a lot of Chemistry, being a Cards nurse. So, I'll try to explain it in those terms. The chemistry inside a cell does not imply "consciousness", as I see it. There is also a difference between "reflex" / "reaction", and purposeful action. If you did not have "memory", (which Pete does not), then ["input information" referenced to memory" + emotion, (reflexive input) + a few other things] does NOT obtain "consciousness". The question is, "why does consciousness arise form the molecular level of complexity. There appears to be no other examples of it. Do you think an IBM computer with "sensory input" referenced to a large memory, would be conscious ?

Actually, parmecium can be trained. They do demonstrate the ability to learn. They do possess memory. That is a scientific fact that has been established since the 1950's. I think I posted a link to a scientific paper in this very string somewhere.

I'm not saying they have reasoning and logic abilities. I'm saying they make decisions and they remember things, and this takes a mind, and a mind is a conscious construct. But they have no mechanism for it. So it must be external.

I have laid out my entire evidence for why I believe consciousness is external to living organisms and not emergent from them. I can't do any better. I have done personal research on paramecium; I have reviewed scientific literature that further supports my conclusions. I have had personal precognitive experiences, and I have philosophically studied the implications of these observations.

If that doesn't convince you as it has convinced me, then I can't do any more.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that atheists not only believe that consciousness is emergent from living animal nervous systems, but they have to believe it in order to remain atheists. I am not so constrained.

(19-10-2012 02:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Ed,
I think you may be "anthropomorphizing" things, a bit, for Pete the Parmecium.

LOL

Quote:I think you're a good, compassionate guy, and you feel guilty about pestering the little guy. No,it's just chemical reactions. I'll try to find some and explain why that would happen in the environment of the "basic" pH. I know you know a lot of Chemistry, being a Cards nurse. So, I'll try to explain it in those terms. The chemistry inside a cell does not imply "consciousness", as I see it. There is also a difference between "reflex" / "reaction", and purposeful action. If you did not have "memory", (which Pete does not), then ["input information" referenced to memory" + emotion, (reflexive input) + a few other things] does NOT obtain "consciousness". The question is, "why does consciousness arise form the molecular level of complexity. There appears to be no other examples of it. Do you think an IBM computer with "sensory input" referenced to a large memory, would be conscious ?

Actually, parmecium can be trained. They do demonstrate the ability to learn. They do possess memory. That is a scientific fact that has been established since the 1950's. I think I posted a link to a scientific paper in this very string somewhere.

I'm not saying they have reasoning and logic abilities. I'm saying they make decisions and they remember things, and this takes a mind, and a mind is a conscious construct. But they have no mechanism for it. So it must be external.

I have laid out my entire evidence for why I believe consciousness is external to living organisms and not emergent from them. I can't do any better. I have done personal research on paramecium; I have reviewed scientific literature that further supports my conclusions. I have had personal precognitive experiences, and I have philosophically studied the implications of these observations.

If that doesn't convince you as it has convinced me, then I can't do any more.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that atheists not only believe that consciousness is emergent from living animal nervous systems, but they have to believe it in order to remain atheists. I am not so constrained.

Do you really mean to say you've been around here this long and you still don't know what it means to be an atheist? Atheism has nothing to say about external consciousness. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god. Plenty of people who don't believe in god can still believe in all kinds of other woo. Not me. I think woo is silly when everything can be explained through reasonable means, but to each their own.

For some reason you loathe the term atheist, yet you functionally have become one. You just still want to hang onto some sort of woo about the universe and external consciousness. Fine. Welcome to the fold of those who don't believe in god!

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness
~Izel

(20-10-2012 01:57 AM)Egor Wrote: Actually, parmecium can be trained. They do demonstrate the ability to learn. They do possess memory. That is a scientific fact that has been established since the 1950's. I think I posted a link to a scientific paper in this very string somewhere.

More likely morality as chemical intelligence. We moralize through simulation, but ya don't need all that. A regulator, a clock, a switch; printouts of past patterns to match against present patterns chemically. It's - - sacred geometry, but only sacred as geometry is the canvas of reality.

I don't wanna worship no canvas; I wanna worship me some Gwynnies.

Then there's the white marbles. You got like a whole sea of 'em, eternal, unchanging. Then the red marble appears. From one, a multitude of patterns of sequence and simultaneity. But the mind of god is playing with a single marble. We're past all that.

(20-10-2012 01:57 AM)Egor Wrote: I'm not saying they have reasoning and logic abilities. I'm saying they make decisions and they remember things, and this takes a mind, and a mind is a conscious construct. But they have no mechanism for it. So it must be external.

This logic is flawed. The memory is chemical and requires no mind or consciousness.

You took a giant illogical leap into the abyss with that one.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(19-10-2012 02:27 PM)Erxomai Wrote: If I may make a bold prediction, it seems like there really isn't any difference between your god/universe and my eternal universe except that you believe some essence of you continues existing as god and I believe we die and our atoms and molecules go back into the universe.

You'll likely disagree, but it seems from my point of view that there is no practical difference between your view and mine. Neither of us worship anything and neither of us feel obligated to follow prescribed rules and regulations that give shape to religions.

I disagree. I mean I totally agree with the second paragraph there, but the first one is not accurate. You believe in a material universe. I believe consciousness is the only substance that is real, and all things are made from it, including matter. You see the universe as real--I don't.

Having said that, I think we are both deep thinkers. I think it would be quite interesting to sit down in a pub and have a discussion with you, beer after beer after beer. And for all I know, you may be right.

The evidence is for quite the reverse; consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(20-10-2012 03:09 AM)Erxomai Wrote: Do you really mean to say you've been around here this long and you still don't know what it means to be an atheist? Atheism has nothing to say about external consciousness. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god. Plenty of people who don't believe in god can still believe in all kinds of other woo. Not me. I think woo is silly when everything can be explained through reasonable means, but to each their own.

For some reason you loathe the term atheist, yet you functionally have become one. You just still want to hang onto some sort of woo about the universe and external consciousness. Fine. Welcome to the fold of those whoe don't believe in god!

He seems to have a very twisted view of what an atheist is, much like Billy Lame (WLC). Contrary to Egor's claim, atheism and his views are not mutually exclusive. Hell, there are even atheists like Luminion who believe in dualism.

(20-10-2012 01:47 AM)Egor Wrote: I disagree. I mean I totally agree with the second paragraph there, but the first one is not accurate. You believe in a material universe. I believe consciousness is the only substance that is real, and all things are made from it, including matter. You see the universe as real--I don't.

Having said that, I think we are both deep thinkers. I think it would be quite interesting to sit down in a pub and have a discussion with you, beer after beer after beer. And for all I know, you may be right.

The evidence is for quite the reverse; consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain.

Shhhhh...wait until we've got a few beers in him, then you can lay that on him.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness
~Izel

(17-10-2012 11:30 AM)robotworld Wrote: Hmm... I can't lay down my agreement or disagreement yet. Can you elaborate further on your first statement?

Well, before the universe existed, before the singularity expanded, before there was a singularity, there had to be the substance of all things that would be. This is indisputable.

That substance had to also be conscious in order to order the universe as it is. There is simply no way the universe could be an accident. There is no rational way to believe that.

The only thing that seems similar to this primordial consciousness is what we find in dreams. That is, in a dream you feel the ground, you eat, drink, fuck, whatever—all these things and people are real in the context of that dream world, but in reality, they all derive from the substance of your mind, your consciousness, even your own dream body.

So it seems likely the universe is the same way. There was a time when it didn’t exist. The only thing capable of making it exist is consciousness.

Hi Egor, thanks for the reply
An external consciousness created our universe? Possible, but I'm not sure whether there are evidence supporting that. Still learning more about the different ideas regarding how the universe began.

My initial thoughts were that consciousness only came much later, when the nervous system has developed to a certain advanced point, until I read from you on how Paramecium seems to have a consciousness due to its ability to learn. My hypothesis is that it has something to do with the altered gene regulation within the paramecium due to application of a stimuli, thus changing its behaviour. Also, it seems that another more recent paper has suggested that the learning did not take place (http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466...2.533-538) I'm unable to access the paper however, so I cannot say who is right or wrong at this point of time without looking into the research methodology of the aforementioned paper.

Something slightly off topic. I had the chance to work with Paramecium quite recently, and seen some interesting responses, like how they seem to huddle together as they die after I add Janus green into the slide, and how they respond when there is an obstacle in front of them. The best part of these Paramecium in my opinion is how they twirl around as they move about.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ

So the criteria for the existence of a mind is making decisions and remembering things? That means that a mind can be made for under $0.40 each at Foxconn on an 8cm^2 PCB. Gimme a thermistor, an LED, a watch battery, a few resistors a couple small general purpose BJTs and a flip-flop IC. By your definition I have just created a mind; something that can make decisions and remember things about it's environment. It only has one sense (temperature, through the thermistor) and one "limb" (the LED) but it can remember things and make decisions.

Therefore I am god.

Forget child's play. Let's look at any modern smartphone. It has two or more high resolution cameras, several temperature sensors, a gyroscope, antennas that allow it to receive information from GPS, wifi, 3G, 4G, and Bluetooth signals, it has several mechanical buttons and a capacitive touchscreen. It will have a gigabyte of working memory (RAM) and several gigabytes of storage memory and a fast processor and software that allows it to process and remember information about its environment (which includes you, its owner) and to make decisions based on that information.

Let's go bigger. Google. Google owns 2% of all severs ever made. No one else is over the 0.99% mark. That's millions machines with petabytes of memory, billions of logical processors, working day and night to process the actions of every internet user in the world (around 3.5 billion people), remember those actions, and then interpret them using complex algorithms to decide which ads, search results, and Youtube videos to recommend. If your definition is valid, then Google is currently in possession of the biggest mind on the planet.